🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that external control, from abroad, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom represented an action within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, although certain acts take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these matters."